The Killing of al-Qaeda's No. 3: Does It Matter? (Time.com)

LeMask said:
Some people here speak like medieval war lords... All they can think about is more violence.

"things aren't going well on the battlefield? hmmm, let's try nasty tactics."
"but sir, the tactics are already very nasty."
"okay, let's try something even nastier."

It's not just criminal, it's inhuman, criminal AND dumb... because it doesn't work...

If you invade Afghanistan like an "evil power" like you say, then you might crush Afghanistan... Maybe... But all the justice loving people all over the world will start to fight you. Think about friendly countries... Like in Europe who cant hold their population unless they promise them to fight for justice and freedom...

It's like cutting the branch supporting you... People need justice to survive. we need at least an illusion of justice to live. At least. We barely have that... take that out and the whole society would collapse.

The biggest weapon the terrorists have uses this very principle. They see us as a corrupt system, crushed under his own weight... If you give them that, all they have to do is sit while we destroy ourselves...
Click to expand...

Then why did we not figure that out thousands of years ago?Yet here we are again! I do not see Afghanistan as violence answering violence, because It is not like the insurgence is going to say "time out so the Western Powers can take time to philosophicaly implement human rights and better ship into war strategy and undo a entire two millenniums at least of human tendency and nature which shaped the way our civilizations exist today.... take you time infidels, call us when your are ready."

Meanwhile while ideas of rainbows and human betterment cross the minds of military planners and world leaders alike, the entire underground machine of the Tali ban, and similar insurgencies, both foreign and domestic in the region are going to continue to function, I do not think they really care about that at this point. I am not saying this in a pissed off let's get them cause they got us tone, just trying to point out what I most people seem to ignore.

And for those of you who do agrue that, all the coalition needs to do, is delegitimize these terror networks operating in the region. Well, I do think that ruthless killing and oppression and violation of basic human rights is pretty illegitimate, I think that was established a long time ago, I don't think they are oblivious that what they are doing is wrong by "our' standards, and really do not give a damn.

They know they are illegitimate, at least I am sure the top levels do, just all about business as usual, they have been doing it for years, and as trying to settle the last of the wild west that has been in conflict for thousands of years, undoing and taming that, I do not think that could happen even under the best conditions in under a decade. You literally have generations that were born, and grew up, entirely surrounded by conflict.

It sucks, but I don't mean to sound like a jerk wad, and am not intending to show disrespect, just that this section of the globe, as for the Coalition's efforts, is a real hard case.

As quoted earlier, "Ask the Russians."
 
Last edited:
All BS aside, it is necessary to repeat a 'truism'.

KILL A TERRORIST AND THERE IS ONE LESS TERRORIST LEFT TO KILL INNOCENTS ... KILL 10,000 TERRORISTS, AND THERE WILL BE WORLD PEACE.

No matter how you spin it, it's that simple .......
 
Chief Bones said:
All BS aside, it is necessary to repeat a 'truism'.

KILL A TERRORIST AND THERE IS ONE LESS TERRORIST LEFT TO KILL INNOCENTS ... KILL 10,000 TERRORISTS, AND THERE WILL BE WORLD PEACE.

No matter how you spin it, it's that simple .......
Click to expand...

Best thing I have heard all day.

Amen
 
We should agree with the definition of a terrorist first...

We have to understand that we are scared of some people, while we shouldnt be scared of them...

Many people are labeled as terrorists while they are not. And I'm not into the "terrorist of freedom fighter?" debate yet...

If we allow people to kill "terrorists", I mean, to engage them aggressively, innocent people will be harmed (not talking about collateral damage here) because some powerful and dumb people are scared of them...

And then, there is the manipulation of the powerful and corrupt who will label their enemies as terrorists.

The use of lethal force have to be a last resort in all cases. Even when dealing with terrorists.

Killing 10.000 terrorists doesnt equal world peace, but civil war and 1 million extra new terrorists joining the party.

Terrorists have to be killed when they are acting. In hostage situations, when they are building a bomb etc... In self defense. And it have to be obvious. Because public support is important, this is where the terrorists are born/hired/made.

The military cant find solutions to our problems. The military's job is security. Not problem solving. Their job is to protect the solution while it's in progress. The solution is political. We have to make terrorism obsolete.

The day the terrorists will be just common criminal or religious nut jobs, the military wont have to deal with them. Special units working for the police will take on these madmen.
 
They want to kill you , to get personal, and strike fear into your loved ones, but mainly want you dead for you place of origin or ideals, and there is a line of em, and they would also like you dead, their business hours are fluid on a first come first serve basis, and they are open 25 hours daily, 8 days a week, and will not rest until they accomplish their idealistic goals of spreading fear and forming a oppressive regime and violating the rights of others that you are so fond of, and also...


they want YOU dead.
 
Well, I cant even sue them for that...

If someone wants me dead and does nothing about it... I cant even sue him. Unless he sends me threats or something... All I can do is think "why the hell he wants me dead? Why is he such a jerk?"

And these are allegations, we are not even sure that they want us dead... And even if it's the case. Who wants us dead? One or two guys? a whole family? a tribe? a village? a city? a regime? the whole country? Males or females? Young or old?

I know it's a mess, but we have to deal with the whole situation, and it's complex. Dont make things too simple.

I say kill them in self defense, when they are attacking... And find a way to make peace with them.
 
Personally I don't like the term "terrorist" because it dumbs down an array of enemies and problems and treats them like some kind of unified and uniform front.
They are as diverse as things ever get.
But dudes who usually fall into the label are most often better off dead than alive.
 
My definition of a terrorist is a simplistic one .....

Any person[or group] that uses fear (through the attack of innocent civilians), or uses terrorist tactics (through the attack of 'innocent' peace keepers or the attack on 'innocent' police forces who are only acting as peace keepers) ... AND ... I don't give a damn what reason they give for why they do what they do. If these tactics are used against civilians or against constituted police forces who's only crime is trying to offer their citizens the protection of law ... then they ARE terrorists ... P E R I O D !.

Any other consideration, is just so much BS .. and deserves the 'arse' wipe it receives from individuals like myself. I will ALWAYS support the individuals that attack the military of an oppressive regime (as long as those attacks are open or even clandestine, as long as they are NOT carried out when there is the possibility of 'collateral' damage to innocent civilians).
 
Who just said make peace with them? I am sure you can make "peace" or whatever you wish to call it with insurgents, or terrorist, or hygene challegned criminals, desert pirates or whatever you want to call the threat in question in the conlfict regions of Afghanistan. And I am sure, very sure that at least in terms of agreement, that "peace" will involve you parting with some very dear liberties that you hold very close to you.

If you still want to give it a shot, gimmee a few months to save up for the trip, and I help you pack.

Better yet, don't pack, you most likely won't end up needing it.
 
A Can of Man said:
Right so finding out where these insurgents live and blasting their villages off the map will win the war for us?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


No, there are probably groups of hundereds of military planners and civilian policy makers in many many different countries that are still trying to find out the answer to that very question.

Just that making offers of peace and traquility at this point does seem to obviously not be that effective, they quite evidentily want the coalition OUT, from Afghanistan, not to make a peaceful reslolution and coperate in co builidng a new future under anything remotly western in Afghanistan. I also would not be surprised if they are looking for more ways to target coalition soft targets within their own borders.

I feel like the more that I am saying, the more I look like a d bag, I really am not trying to offend here.:-?

But finding out their places of refuge would not hurt. I am not going to pretend I have the answer, If I did that would mean someone else told me, and the war in Afghanistan would have been vaporized by a resolution a long time ago.
 
Probably the only way they'll ever consider agreeing to a truce is if the situation is unwinnable for them, that is, the rest of Afghanistan is in a strong and stable enough state that their forays into Afghanistan become pointless suicide missions.
I don't think it will be possible to put them in a position where they believe that they will actually lose. After all, they do have large swaths of Pakistan.
When the war goes badly for them, they are bound to have plenty of internal conflicts that will keep them busy for a while.
 
Survival seems to be there long term goal along with recapturing Afghanistan. Even if the coalition routed them for good, they could easily just shift business to Pakistan. Also they way they view victory maybe a little different than ours, also, on that same side of the coin, they may see defeat differently to...
 
No, they are still surviving, we didn't kill them, therefore that can be labeled a failure on our part, and exploited as a defeat in their logic.

Just saying... After fighting with the world's powers, and escaping destruction from them as a rag tag group of almost flat broke fighters from the mountains, that could be seen as a victory, or at least exploited in their new AO as such.
 
Guys, we have to face reality. We have a lot of firepower, but it doesnt make us the strongest guys in the block yet.

I think that we should do something about the arrogance our leaders have. They spend their time telling us that we have the biggest to send us to war.

Of course they want us outside Afghanistan, we dont belong there. Do you want to leave in Afghanistan? Even if there was cheap beer and casinos, I dont want to live there...

And we all know that the Karzai government is joke, a Western/US puppet installed there... An insult to democracy.

The mission is Afghanistan should have been simple. The destruction of war criminal and active terrorists cell... As much as possible but without harming innocent civilians... And support of the locals who are fighting for justice/human rights/democracy...

Nothing more than that, no invasion, nothing... And if the results are poor, then screw it... No results, we arent gods. Who can change a hell hole like Afghanistan into a democracy in 20years?

And the terrorists are a bunch of simple guys with nothing to lose... They are never worth the effort... I say make them fat with peanut butter... Once fat... They would chill out.
 
Yossarian said:
Just saying... After fighting with the world's powers, and escaping destruction from them as a rag tag group of almost flat broke fighters from the mountains, that could be seen as a victory, or at least exploited in their new AO as such.
Click to expand...

Everyone likes to spin a defeat into at least a tie or a win.
Even Saddam Hussein called his 1991 misadventure a "victory" since he escaped from it in power.
So in a way it's a bit unavoidable unless your aim is to go smashing through every neighborhood until there's no one left.
Then you'll lose for other reasons...
 
If the Coalition puts together a long lasting friendly regime in Afghanistan, than their goals will be accomplished, and the troops there can start coming home in phases. That's what I can Peice together anyway, the terror organizations operating there, along with the Taliban and the insurgent groups, are trying to disrupt that, maybe somehow and cause their enemy to use as much resources dealing with them, along with armed resistance.

What they label as a victory can simply not be controlled:| You can not come to a "conclusion" on this, just one of those things that is what it is. Even in a conflict free Afghanistan, I do not think by any means the world has seen the last of them.

You don't want to go on a destructive manhunt? Fine, I understand, that does not win you over with the citizens there, hell I would be pissed if my home village got blown off the map for 5 or 6 guys to, I would support the enemy then to.

But you can't realize that, and just wish them away, the Taliban in particular can just as easily as NGO just disappear into a hole somewhere where diplomatically the Coalition can not follow. And well, survive off nothing, they may not be as effective then, but hey, at least they are alive and maybe can continue operations at a different date, or when the Coalition leaves Afghanistan.

I would that somehow find a way for the stronger faction leaders in that region harboring them to grow in disapproval of them there, and also cause doubt inside the enemy organization, and try to make them if not collapse from the inside out, but at least less effective.

Cause I really don't do not like those pricks, call that medieval:|
 
Last edited:
Try to keep emotion out of your thinking unless it is the emotions of others (allies, enemies and neutrals) you are taking into consideration.
 
I am not sympathizing just eying what I can decipher, if the campaign was run on emotion, there would indeed be a huge mess on the Coalitions hand right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top